Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts findings and overturns Rooster Tail noise variance
Summary
The Board of Appeals voted 4–0 to adopt draft findings and overturn a rooftop noise variance for Rooster Tail, after residents testified about persistent noise and DBI/DPH discussed measurement methods and authority under the noise ordinance.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 10 adopted draft findings and overturned a noise variance that had been granted to Rooster Tail restaurant, voting 4–0 to accept the findings and begin a 10‑day rehearing request period.
Appellant Michiko Yamada told the board she and other neighbors have endured rooftop fan noise for three years and challenged the Department of Public Health’s measurement procedures, saying DPH used an unusually high ambient value and that inspectors did not follow the department’s stated triangulation procedure for interior measurements. "DPH failed to take measurements in my kitchen dining area where I spend a great deal of time," Yamada said, and asked the board to "overturn this variance and set a timeline for Rooster Tail to complete remedial action, and comply with the noise ordinance as soon as possible."
Rooster Tail’s counsel, David Silverman, said the restaurant offered to fund mitigations but that the offer was refused. He submitted a private HVAC contractor’s inspection that concluded the fans produced "no more noise than other restaurant sites" and said letters from business groups urged the board to uphold the variance. The Golden Gate Restaurant Association and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce supplied letters in support of the variance.
A Department of Public Health representative reminded the board that under the city noise ordinance the Director of the Department of Public Health is the official determiner of whether noise affects public health. "The noise ordinance, Section 2,912, actually grants that determination solely to the Director of the Department of Public Health," the department representative said, noting DPH’s role in public‑health determinations.
Commissioners considered the technical evidence and the neighbors’ acoustic reports. Commissioner Fung moved to adopt the draft findings; the board adopted them on a 4–0 roll call and overruled the variance on the basis found in the draft findings. The Board recorded the motion as an overturning of the variance and opened the 10‑day rehearing request period.
